Thursday, February 19, 2015

Some time ago we had a discussion about Latour's pronouncements on climate change and climate policy. This discussion was sparked by Werner's post Gaia ist kitzlig. The discussion was conducted entirely in German. I said in one of the comments that we should have a separate thread so here goes.

During the discussion I criticised Latour strongly, based on an interview he had, together with the late Ulrich Beck, given to the FAZ. I have now come across a paper by Latour, based on a talk he gave in Vancouver in September 2013. In this paper he develops his idea about a climate war and his distaste for the notion of 'climate change' in greater detail.

While reading this paper it occurred to me that maybe some of his intended meaning was lost in translation when speaking the FAZ journalists. To remind you, the most explosive parts of that interview had to do with his use of the concept of war when talking about the climate debate.

In the Vancouver talk he develops the thought in more detail. He offers this observation:

Let me start with the notion of “conflicts”. I think it is fair to say that on all the questions I will deal with tonight, we are divided. Not only are we divided among different parties, different factions, religions, ideologies; but also, and maybe more deeply, each of us is divided inside ourselves. I certainly feel such division. Indeed, it is to this place of internal conflict that I look for the courage to address you tonight.

Latour puts his weight behind the IPCC but acts as a climatosceptic at the same time:

Even though I decided to align myself behind the I.P.C.C. report (not the same thing as “believing” in it), I feel very much that I am a skeptic since I don’t know what to do about it, apart from a few pathetic gestures like sorting my rubbish and limiting my carbon footprint (and feeling guilty about it). I act as a climatosceptic, or rather, because of this state of relative indecision, I share with those people an attitude that represents most of the developed world right now (including Canada, to the great disappointment of Europeans…), and one that could be called climato-quietism (quietism in theology being a laid-back attitude that somehow, without doing anything much, God will take care of our salvation).

We get the idea that it is not easy to take a well defined position in the climate debate.

The point I want to introduce here is that when people turn to nature or speak about nature or invoke natural laws, they are never really “at war” with anybody — whatever crimes they may commit. Of course they meet people who disagree, but those are not technically — legally — their enemies, they are simply more or less irrational people, more or less enlightened persons, more or less educated parties, more or less archaic or backward members of exotic cultures. And this “peaceful” attitude is as common to those who say: “Of course we live at the period of the anthropocene, it is proven, only reactionary nitwits may still doubt it” as those who say: “Of course anthropocene is a fantasy pushed by misguided fanatics, Cassandra scientists and apocalyptic sects.” In both cases they might be able to fight fiercely but still they are not at war since the overall question has been decided elsewhere, above the parties, by Science, by Reason, by God, by Providence, by the Tribunal of History, by the movement of Modernity, it does not matter which. If you believe this, then, at heart, no matter how combative you feel, you are a peace-maker engaged in the task of merely disciplining the remaining morons.

Do you feel the difference? When you engage in a police operation, you act in the name of a higher authority that has already settled the conflict and you merely play the role of an instrument of punishment. But when you are at war, it is only through the throes of the encounters that the authority you have or don’t have will be decided depending whether you win or lose.

Latour concludes that it is either police or politics that is open to us as a strategy in the climate debate. Note that the notion of war has gone in this formula, and it was introduced maybe only to provoke, or to emphasize the importance of Carl Schmitt's insights about the antagonistic nature of politics.

But in drawing the distinction between policing and politicking Latour touches upon an important question. The IPCC and its public defenders and followers are caught in between these two approaches. On the one hand, it is a matter of policing and silencing the 'unconvinced'. The facts are clear ('The science is settled'). No discussion is needed, only education or excommunication. On the other hand, the facts and their meaning presented by the IPCC are commented and interpreted (often by the same people). For example, we hear that the IPCC is too conservative, or that new research has already superseded findings from the last report, etc. ('It is worse than we thought'). In so doing the discussants enter the fray, without being able to use the authority of the IPCC as a discussion stopper.

This oscillation between appeal to authority while at the same time combatting 'the enemy' in the climate change debate is something I have noted. I agree with Latour on this point and with his diagnosis while I have still reservations about the use of war metaphors in describing the situation. Yes, the debate is polarised. But this is not a good thing in itself (and not given by nature, or by Carl Schmitt) but an obstacle to the productive development of effective climate policies, a point which Latour loses sight of in his (otherwise quite illuminating) talk.

In this talk Latour gives a more nuanced picture about the choices one makes when speaking about climate change, it is no longer a simple 'we are at war!' He acknowledges the he (and we) are often divided within ourselves. However, he still loves this stark binary distinction between war and peace, where a more nuanced picture would be useful to advance the debate. This is ironic for an author who spent so much energy tearing down binary distinctions (as those between nature and society, or between science and culture).

12
comments:

Karl Kuhn
said...

Credit to Latour: others in the debate use the word 'war' in a much less reflected manner. M. Mann for instance uses it for his book title, and there are also people on the other side of the aisle invoking bellicose language.

A couple of years ago the Economist criticised this proliferation of martial language in everyday politics, e.g. the nonchalant equating of a lively parliamentary debate as 'bloodbath'.

In this way, we dream up non-existent wars while trying our best to ignore the real wars that are creeping up on us. The climate debate is war, but Eastern Ukraine mustn't. Funny.

It is great to see that Bruno Latour in his paper takes as his example "the objective statement 'industrial civilization passed the 400ppm of CO2 threshold in Spring 2013'". Some years ago, we already discussed exactly this question here on klimazwiebel.

I argued that we all sit around campfires - parliaments, blogs, homes - discussing the question of the threshold. I ended my post in writing that Bruno Latour reminds us that we have to bring together the world of climate, of societies, of God and of language - we have to come to terms with this issue".

Now, in 2015, Bruno Latour writes:

"(the 400ppm statement) directs toward either action or inaction which is fully political not only in the sense of being practical or of mobilizing heads of state, but in that this action or inaction amounts to a kind of - there is no other word for it - civil war. Sides have to be taken. Decisions have to be made. Police or politics, you have to choose."

What does he mean by war? The 400ppm threshold statement differs from a statement about the boiling point of water, for example. There is no Science or law of nature that tells us what to do when the 400ppm threshold is passed. There is no arbiter:

"It is traditional in political philosophy to contrast war with what could be called policing or peace-making operations. If a burglar is breaking into your neighbor’shouse, there is no controversy over values and procedures. You call the police. It might be difficult to get the culprit but nobody discusses the legitimate grounds of the police to act. The overall situation has been settled by a referee, an arbiter, inthis case the State. Things are entirely different in the case of war — for instance civil war. Then the decision on who is the legitimate authority is precisely what is to be tried out through some decisive encounter. In this case, there is no arbiter, no referee,nor preliminary verdict."

Skeptics and alarmists might "fight fiercley but still they are not at war since the overall question has been decided elsewhere, above the parties, by Science, by Reason, by God, by Providence, by the Tribunal of History, by the movement of Modernity, it does not matter which. If you believe this, then, at heart, no matter how combative you feel, you are a peace-maker engaged in the task of merely disciplining the remaining morons." (p61).

In the end, Latour poses three questions, and the third one is:

"Third: do you act as the legitimate instrument of a higher authority that has already settled the issue, or do you have enemies who could win if you fail to fight them during an encounter for which there is no higher arbiter. Is there some Tribunal of History to decide the issue or not? In other words: are we at war with one another, or just in the usual normal disagreement that can be settled by appealing to somesort of Universal State?"

I started my post in 2012 with the statement that Bruno Latour reminds us that "we have never been modern". He ends his recent paper with the statement that he'd wish to be able to still be modern:

"I wish I was wrong in drawing these lines, in insisting on division and war. Can you imagine how marvelous life would be if we were to learn from the I.P.C.C. report thatthey had been mistaken all along and that the temperature would not increase as much as they had expected; how relaxing it would be to learn that geo-engineeringwill take care of the remaining problems and engulf the planet in a safer state of control; how delightful it would be to believe in the progress of Science and Reason,in the prolongation of the Frontier spirit, all the way to the fully modernized Earth and beyond to the Moon and to Mars, maybe further to the stars; how charming it wouldbe to believe again in the endless progress of modernization and Terra Forming; in the globe of Reason encircling the blue planet. I could retire happily nursing the same dreams we shared when I was a little kid, eyes upward trying to detect the blinking sign of Sputnik! Modern again; human again; eyes wide shut, far away from planet Earth, in the hypnotic utopia of the past."

to come back to your question: I needed these lengthy quotes to figure out that "war" is here a philosophical concept. Science / Reason / History do not bring peace as for example Michael Mann intends when he twittered recently that "climate deniers will be judged harshly by History". According to Latour, History will not be the judge, nor will be Science. They will not bring Peace. This is different from establishing a new dichotomy.Does this interpretation make sense?

I don't know what you mean with "war is here a philosophical concept". Does this mean 'analytical'? Or 'theoretical, but irrelevant for practice'? I very much hope he has a different position as Michael Mann. However, in the FAZ interview (which came after his Vanvouver speech) he sounded a bit more like Mann...

When I said that Latour introduces a new dichotomy, I meant the dichotomy between policing and war, between a situation where something has been decided in advance, and a situation where the decision will be the result of a political process (struggle if you prefer). If we interpret the climate debate through this framework we can see how main protagonists are constantly oscillating between the two modes.

"philosophical" because he relies on "the tradition of political philosophy" (p60), that is, Carl Schmitt. And yes, I guess he is different from Mann, as Latour is in doubt if there is something like History / Reason / Science or other higher authority that finally will "judge" deniers. (even though Latour seems to share a sense of urgency; there is a need to find out what is at stake with climate change / the anthropocene).

Yes, I agree with your explanation. Well put, this is exactly the question Latour asks himself and us, too. I guess I stick with the politics/war option, even though I still try to figure out what the consequences are.

It begets the question about who in the conflict is "at war", and who is "policing". And what happens if one side wages a war when the other one is playing police?

To elicit the respective mind set of the actors, it's probably better to evaluate their actions than to wait until they answer Latour's questions in person.

Maybe a criterion could be that "war" is characterized by a "no-holds-barred" activity, "Im Krieg ist alles erlaubt", whereas a police needs to adhere to the rules set by the authority from which it derives its own power.

The latter seems to apply to the vast majority of scientists, in the framework of the IPCC and elsewhere. The blog-, Twitter-, etc. are mostly "explaining the science to the un/mis-informed". Even making fun of "sceptics" and shouting at them counts as (attempted) pedagogical intervention, not as "war waging".

However, occurrences such as the Willie Soon scandal could be interpreted as powerful outside-science players funnelling 7-figure sums to their bridgeheads in the science theatre to score strategic points at the science-politics interface in order to avert their impeding economic collapse because their business model is incompatible with effective mitigation.

Sounds like "war" to me.

Same with attacking computer systems to obtain private communications ("Climategate") to stage a smear campaign, or orchestrating personal threats to researchers.

Of course, actors on the other side might also be engaged in a war. Peter Gleick's social engineering stunt to obtain internal Heartland-Institute documents comes to mind. Also for some outreach activities from NGOs such as Greenpeace and some individuals, it is hard to draw a distinction between "informing about the science" and "tactical propaganda to influence politics".

I would think that if you are pitted against someone who is in "war mode", you better stop playing police. At the moment I would argue that the science community better realizes this. Just because as a climate scientist you are terribly good at explaining the science, that doesn't mean it is the appropriate action.

'However, occurrences such as the Willie Soon scandal could be interpreted as powerful outside-science players funnelling 7-figure sums to their bridgeheads in the science theatre to score strategic points at the science-politics interface in order to avert their impeding economic collapse because their business model is incompatible with effective mitigation.Sounds like "war" to me.'

"Could be interpreted". And could be interpreted as some people funding climate science, as many other fund climate science. Could be interpreted as not being a "scandal" at all. Note that Koch funded the BEST project as well, and apparently were just fine with the results.Sounds to me not like war, but like you want to find things that you can call war. Or that you are predisposed to see pretty innocuous things that way.

'I would think that if you are pitted against someone who is in "war mode", you better stop playing police. At the moment I would argue that the science community better realizes this.'Terrible mistake. This is the Climategate mistake, and the mistake that much of the public face of climate science has been making since then. You should not convince the public that you are nothing but a bunch of partisan politicians. We trust scientists, we don't trust politicians.Note that it doesn't help to say that the "skeptical" side is no better, or worse. Fine: you are both politicians; now I don't trust either of you.Scientists have a natural and well-earned advantage in the public trust. Don't throw it away. You will lose far more than you gain.

Note that your example of someone "fighting a war", Peter Gleick, seems to have done more than just a "social engineering" stunt to obtain secret documents. He most probably forged the most incriminating document himself.http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/peter-gleick-confesses-to-obtaining-heartland-documents-under-false-pretenses/253395/"When skeptics complain that global warming activists are apparently willing to go to any lengths--including lying--to advance their worldview, I'd say one of the movement's top priorities should be not proving them right.""After you have convinced people that you fervently believe your cause to be more important than telling the truth, you've lost the power to convince them of anything else."Exactly as I said above.

interesting examples! I am not sure if they really represent examples of war in the Latourian sense. Peter Gleick was debunked; Will Soon is judged by peer-review, independently by whom he is paid; hacked Emails are a case for the police (?) and their content for a Committee. Thus, these cases might still belong to the realm of policing or peace-making (see my comment #2, 2nd last paragraph).

The statement that the 400ppm threshold was passed might serve as an example for war: does this statement mean action or inaction? Who is to decide? There is no higher authority; those who allign best their troops (the institutions, the scientists) will win; here the Koch brothers might come into play, too (see my comment #2, Latour quote 3rd paragraph). This example is different from yours, as far as I understand?

Point is, does (settled) science help anything? Has IPCC climate science provided anything useful for actual political decision making? Try to find tools, mechanisms, data, even values allowing for commonly accepted burden sharing on the national and regional level. Nothing oin the horizon. Compare classical security issues like the Ukraine crisis or the fears in the Baltics - You don't need any rocket science or big computers to see that there are conflicts of interests which a violent potential. Latours "prayer to Gaya" sounds as helpless as appealing to world peace in Minsk. Cheers FH

Sustainable use of KLIMAZWIEBEL

The participants of KLIMAZWIEBEL are made of a diverse group of people interested in the climate issue; among them people, who consider the man-made climate change explanation as true, and others, who consider this explanation false. We have scientists and lay people; natural scientists and social scientists. People with different cultural and professional backgrounds. This is a unique resource for a relevant and inspiring discussion. This resource needs sustainable management by everybody. Therefore we ask to pay attention to these rules:

1. We do not want to see insults, ad hominem comments, lengthy tirades, ongoing repetitions, forms of disrespect to opponents. Also lengthy presentation of amateur-theories are not welcomed. When violating these rules, postings will be deleted.2. Please limit your contributions to the issues of the different threads.3. Please give your name or use an alias - comments from "anonymous" should be avoided.4. When you feel yourself provoked, please restrain from ranting; instead try to delay your response for a couple of hours, when your anger has evaporated somewhat.5. If you wan to submit a posting (begin a new thread), send it to either Eduardo Zorita or Hans von Storch - we publish it within short time. But please, only articles related to climate science and climate policy.6. Use whatever language you want. But maybe not a language which is rarely understood in Hamburg.